Talk:Results of the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Presidents Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

okay folks, let's get started

The big show is only 34 days away!!!! Please put candidate pictures up, divide the chart where necessary, add places to list delegates and the like. I trust y'all to do a bang-up job.70.107.133.97 (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to mainspace?

Should we wait until the day of the Iowa caucuses to move the article to the mainspace? David O. Johnson (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, in just a few hours? @David O. Johnson: I'd say anybody's free to mainspace this now. I'd mainspace it myself, but since I didn't have any hand in creating it, it just doesn't feel right. p b p 01:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put this article and the corresponding Democratic article in the mainspace and fixed the wikilinks so they don't redirect. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction b/w primary and secondary?

Aren't we down to few enough candidates that we can have all the ones that are still in it (the 9 "primary" plus Huckabee, Santorum and Gilmore) in a single table and the rest just dropped? p b p 01:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot drop the rest as they're still on the ballot in some states. Jindal is on the ballot in NH, ARK and PR and WILL receive votes, even if only a very few. This is not "Crystal Ball" Pataki is on nine and Graham is on over 20. Once we get to the "final four" candiates, the rest will still get votes. Don't cut anybody as anybody is still on the ballot in some places.70.107.133.97 (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The charts are too long and need to be cut without sacrificing necessary information. If you scroll down the history page to near the beginning, you will notice that it was totally unwieldy. It still goes into the grey area. I hope you like my solution.155.229.209.58 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, sorry. There's no such thing as "too long"; we can always scroll right if the table is large. It seems to break up the candidates arbitrarily. As for Pataki, Graham, Jindal, and any non-major candidate, we can always throw them in the "other" category, and if it's a significant amount of votes, we can denote it with a footnote. p b p 21:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@155.229.209.58: I have used a number of gimmicks to significantly narrow the two tables while still including the 12 candidates active at the start of the Iowa caucuses. p b p 22:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great on Firefox but bad on Safari. That is not your fault, (it's Safari's) but I appreciate the effort. Thanks.

I put back the "early suspended candidate chart you seem to object to because Wikipedia must be inclusive, at least on this page. Graham, Pataki and Jindal are just as much on the ballot in the early states as Huckabee, Santorum and Paul. There is no difference. None. If you want to change the chart a bit, go ahead. But please keep it. It will start to fill up on wednesday, and on March 2nd will be almost full. It will be grand, and generations of middle school kids in the future will thank you when they look up this stuff for their social studies reports.74.101.76.238 (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize how many people are on the ballot in New Hampshire? If we include Graham, Pataki and Jindal, we'll have to include everybody on the ballot in every state (for example, the people who split the 116 votes in Iowa, and Messina and Fellure), even if they're not notable. Tell you what, I'll make a deal with you: if Graham, Pataki or Jindal get more than 500 votes, I'll add them back as a column. I can guarantee you they won't. p b p 15:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grand totals, super tuesday. Done. ;)!72.226.125.231 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they get those votes, I'll cover them in a collapsed table the way they cover "other candidates" in the GOP 2012 article. Note that even though Herman Cain got more than 500 votes in a single state, he still wasn't even included in the popular vote by state tables. The consensus is to limit popular vote by state tables to candidates in Iowa at the start. People who were out of the race before Iowa; and minor candidates are handled differently. p b p 19:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would note the manner in which the data is currently displayed is consistent with the manner in which it was displayed in 2012. The full vote totals for all candidates is parsed out in separate sections or articles on each state. p b p 15:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move total to top

Any objection to moving the total to the top of the table instead of the bottom? It would be easier to keep track of I think. Aaron44126 (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

County map

Any objection to me inserting the results by county map? File:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2016.svg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No more superdelegates

According to the RNC, all of the automatic party delegates each delegation has are included in the at-large pool of pledged delegates. The only ones that aren't pledged are the handful of delegations that have conventions with no preference poll. FHQ has the documents clarifying this. 50.197.11.93 (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs lot more work

I have added an "out of date" tag - there is lots of updating that still needs to be done from Super Tuesday, including some of the maps. St Anselm (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect info

Some of the state tables in the Super Tuesday [1] subsection have the wrong state, type of election and date info in their titles. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I hope. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for an WP:Editnotice

I made a proposal over here to add an editnotice to this page and others. Please join the discussion if you have any comments or suggestions. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota results

This page has errors in the Minnesota results. Based on numbers on this page for votes for each candidate and total votes, Ted Cruz should show 29.0% John Kasich should show 5.8%

Thanks for your good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.6.97 (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Minn. table has been updated --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire results table needs correcting

Could someone please correct the New Hampshire election results table Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#New Hampshire (for some reason it doesn't lend itself to editing). It should read: Bound: 23/ Unbound: 0/ Total: 23, whilst currently it reads Bound: 0/ Unbound: 23/ Total: 23. Please fix if possible. --Mrodowicz (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it! The reason you couldn't edit it was that the tables are all templates, meaning you would have to go the the template's page itself. In this case the page was called template:2016NHRep. Hope that helps. --Kangaroge (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rectifying the error. --Mrodowicz (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Islands: all unconfirmed

So the USVI results have come in and all six delegates are in the "unconfirmed" category. How should we represent this on the table?Ordinary Person (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how or when to insert this into the table. The results I've seen suggest that all six delegates have not committed to a candidate. However, three of the delegates have the potential for disqualification from the ballot. In addition, the only sources I have found on the caucus results are one of the delegation candidates, a source derived from that delegation candidate, and a website notified by the second source. It seems too early to insert into the table, especially since The Green Papers hasn't added any results to their site.

Once a reliable source adds up the votes, they should be added to the table with a note regarding the delegate voting process in the Virgin Islands, and the fact that the top 6 candidates did not commit to any candidate. The Green Papers will probably sum the votes for each candidate by delegate, so that should make it easier. Adding the total votes in the far right column and noting the votes for uncommitted candidates in a footnote will likely be sufficient. Rocio Nadat 08:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding missing county result maps

The page is missing a lot of county result maps, starting at the Kansas caucuses. --Kangaroge (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Give it some time, I'm sure someone will eventually add them. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with USA Today, Associated Press, Real Clear Politics, CNN, Fox News and everyone?

All of them are showing Trump 678 instead of 693 They are showing less number of Trump delegates in the following states.

Georgia-40 instead of actual 43
Mississipi-24 instead of actual 25
Illinois-53 instead of actual 54
North Carolina-29 instead of actual 30
Missouri-25 instead of actual 37

Is it anti-Trump propaganda or conspiracy? This is disturbing. Media and press is going too low this time. Something needs to be done. Divinnity (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "actual" delegates, it's "projected" delegates. It's not a conspiracy, it's just a complicated process that technically is not yet complete. For example, election results need to be certified by the state official, some states have additional steps after the primary/caucus, and some state's allocation rules are ambiguous. Sources can project numbers differently and sources can take different amounts of time to catch up to new information. It should be cleared up at or before the main convention in July. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know the rules. But the "hard" count on The Green Papers is the official certified number by the state. Here quote from the Green Papers site- "" the "hard" count is the tabulation of delegates already formally pledged or bound by law and/or Party rules. ""

Hard count of delegates i.e. official for Trump = 693 and Cruz = 422 but each and every source on the media and press has it 678 for Trump and 423 for Cruz. They are being so unfair to him. Its just sad. Divinnity (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To quote User:Nizolan who found the information on the Green Papers' website: The Green Papers "hard count", when posted, is (in order of preference) either (a) a state's or party's official breakdown of its delegation, (b) our initial soft count, or (c) the best sources' breakdown of the delegation (even where it differs from our soft count). We will choose (c) when our initial soft count is based upon incomplete information. The hard count is therefore not necessarily a certified result. The discrepancy between the numbers is not that great anyway, and we'll have exact results later in the year so there's no need to be sad. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 03:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As of April 6, Washington Post, NY Times and Politico all report the following that's different from wikipedia/Green Papers:

GA 42 for Trump, 18 for Cruz
IL 53 for Trump, 5 for Kasich
MO 25 for Trump
NC 29 for Trump
WaPo totals Trump 743, Cruz 517, Kasich 143, Rubio 171, others 16
NYT totals Trump 742, Cruz 505 (didn't count NV), Kasich 143, Rubio 171
These are probably from AP
Descrepancies could count in the case of Trump, because if he doesn't win on the first ballot, his bid may be over. And getting to 1237 is going to be close. Eameece (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska delegate allocation

The Alaska GOP is allowing Rubio to keep his delegates in Alaska, so the map and table needs to go back to a 12-11-5 distribution like it was before. source 1 source 2 -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Committed/Uncommitted and Pledged/Unpledged delegates.

The Committed delegates are the ones that are allocated to a certain candidate. These Committed delegates can be as both pledged (bound) and unpledged (unbound) delegates. In fact the sum of Pledged/Unpledged (bound/unbound) delegates to candidates is the Committed delegates.
The Uncommitted delegates are the ones that are not allocated to a certain candidate and therefore remain unprojected.

It is important to include the information of both Committed/Uncommitted and Pledged/Unpledged delegates in the table, and not repeat one of them twice and remove the other ones! Please take these definitions into consideration. Thanks Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 07:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Delegates

The map showing delegate estimates for the 50 states shows 2 delegates for Marco Rubio, but the actual results (and all sources I've read) suggest those two delegates should be for Kasich. I don't know how to edit SVG files, is someone able to fix this error? --=) khfan93 (t) (c) 22:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota Delegates on svg map still uncommitted?

Can someone change the map to have it shaded for Trump in North Dakota?, since the majority of delegates there went for Trump.

--LatinGuy87 (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

District of Columbia Republican presidential primary results by ward, 2016.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

District of Columbia Republican presidential primary results by ward, 2016.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal to 2016 Republican Party Presidential Primaries

This is basically a second article of 2016 Republican Party Presidential Primaries, where the results are already listed. It only makes sense to have one article instead of two. PretendZebra75 (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]